The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.
Contact Our Firm
MO is a successful owner of various restaurants in Scarborough. He was charged with sexual assault after one of his employees alleged that she was sexually harassed and sexually fondled by MO. The accused retained Mr. John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete obtained the various statements that the complainant had filed with the Human Rights Tribunal and the Ministry of Labour. At trial, Mr. Navarrete during cross examination was able to demonstrate how the complainant’s story had significantly changed on key issues including areas of her body that she now alleged had been touched by MO but that she had never before reported to police or in any other statement. The Crown, witnessing the cross examination, invited the trial judge to dismiss the charge against MO on the first day of trial. Charges against MO were dismissed.
FD was charged with domestic assault involving his girl friend. FD had met his girlfriend while working at her restaurant. After reviewing disclosure, Mr. John Navarrete, defence counsel retained on the matter, worked with her independent counsel and with the Crown to ensure that FD completed PARS counseling. FD signed a peace bond and the charges against him were withdrawn.
JE is a successful Youtuber. He was charged with assault and assault with weapon against his girlfriend who also wanted to be a successful Youtuber. After reviewing disclosure, specifically the statement of the complainant, Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pretrial with the Crown Attorney’s Office at Old City Hall. Mr. Navarrete was able to convince the Crown that the assault charge was self-defence and that the assault with a weapon, the throwing of a cell phone, was a reflex motion that never made contact with the complainant. Prior to the trial being conducted, the Crown agreed to resolve the matter by way of peace bond and the charges against JE were withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault and Assault with a Weapon withdrawn prior to trial, Brampton. J.H. resided with his girlfriend the complainant. Unfortunately the relationship was fraught with arguments. On one occasion when the complainant was very unstable, J.H. attempted to calm the complainant and prevent her from harming herself. After the matter calmed down, and J.H. left the apartment, the complainant called police and alleged assault and being struck with a weapon. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. After reviewing the disclosure, the statement of the complainant was confusing and seemed to relate back to incidents with a prior boyfriend completely unrelated to J.H.. A copy of a psychological report was obtained by the defence. The report was subsequent to the charges being laid. The complainant admitted to wrongly accusing J.H. of assault and believes she was experiencing a flash back or other psychological moment related to a past relationship that unfortunately was abusive. The report was provided to the Crown on a confidential basis. Also, letters attesting to the client’s good character was supplied along with a short assessment as to his understanding of domestic issues including conflict management in a relationship. After several pre-trials the Crown agreed that J.H. was wrongly charged and all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 6, Assault with Weapon, Assault x 5, Threatened Death/Harm x 3, Extortion, and Forcible Confinement all withdrawn on the eve of trial, Brampton. The client was in a five year affair with the complainant. The relationship was coming to an end but both parties were not in agreement about ending the relationship. The complainant disclosed the affair to her husband which created a series of events, including messages to D.S.’ wife. D.S. went to police about harassment. The next day the complainant attended police and made numerous allegations of sexual assault, assault etc. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. Diana Davison of the firm was also assigned to the defence of the case. The statements of the complainant were carefully analyzed and charted out in line with the chronology of the client. Further, copious emails and messages were obtained form the client relating to the ending of the relationship along with videos, and other documentary evidence. The complainant alleged loaning D.S. over $340,000.00 over the span of the five year affair. Evidence obtained from the client showed transactions returning significant funds to the complainant. Further, the complainant and her husband commenced a civil actions for damages and for the alleged loans. Joseph Neuberger had D.S. retain civil counsel and also went on as co-counsel to the civil action. A joint strategy was employed to defend both the criminal charges and the civil action. Joseph Neuberger obtained the Affidavit of Documents of the complainant in the civil case. Her Affidavit and productions failed to disclose the amount alleged with insufficient documentary evidence, and blanked out banks statements never showing funds provided by D.S. In the criminal case, the complainant did not provide any documentary evidence of advancing funds. When comparing all the evidence and the Affidavit of Documents, it was obvious that the complainant was perpetrating a fraud on the court. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison drafted a 30 page 276/278 Application to allow cross-examination on prior sexual history evidence and records at the criminal trial. That Application laid out the defence and the messages sent by the complainant that in context completely undermined her assertions of non-consensual sex. In addition a chart was provided establishing material inconsistencies between the complainant’s first and second statement as well as the statements from her husband. The Application was successful. After winning the Application, the defence provided an RPC assessment memo to the Crown, the Affidavit of Documents and productions and put forth the position that the complainant was not telling the truth. The matter had multiple pre-trials and judicial pre-trials. The assigned Crown carefully and fairly reviewed all material supplied by Joseph Neuberger and after detailed discussions agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault and Theft Under withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Barrie, Ontario. It was alleged that A.L. was walking from a party while under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, A,L. saw a person smoke a cigarette on the porch. A.L. wanted to borrow a cigarette but the person at the porch refused. The altercation ensured where A.L. allegedly kicked and hit the person on the porch. A neighbour called 911 and police arrived. What complicated the matter was that A.L. had a serious criminal record. A.L. hired Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partner, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. Mariya conducted extensive pre-trials with the prosecutor and then a Judicial pre-trial. Mariya convinced the prosecutor to withdraw the charges after the client completed 4 counselling sessions. Upon entering into a peace bond, all charges against A.L. were withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 stayed prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. S.G. was at the end of his marriage with the complainant. The complainant had discovered that S.G. had already commenced a relationship with another person. S.G. was charged about a week later after the complainant discovered the new relationship. The allegations of sexual assault were historical. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. The disclosure process was very problematic. Further, Joseph Neuberger referred S.G. to a family lawyer and assisted with the settlement of the family law case. During the pre-trials, the defence was able to produce evidence that the complainant had a made a revenge allegation. After the settlement of the family law case, the complainant did not want to continue with the criminal allegation. Ultimately the charges were stayed prior to trial due to a number of deficiencies with the Crown’s case.
Charges of Assault with a Weapon withdrawn at Scarborough Courthouse. NM was walking with a friend near her apartment complex when the Complainant drove past them. The Complainant alleged that NM blocked the Complainant’s car by standing in front of it. She also alleged that NM sprayed the Complainant with pepper spray when she confronted her about blocking her car. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, was retained to represent NM against the charges. After reviewing disclosure, Yuvika had an extensive discussion with the crown. Yuvika provided defence materials along with a letter from NM’s friend who witnessed the incident. Yuvika established that it was in fact the Complainant who drove towards NM to hit her with the car and when confronted about it, made false allegations about being attacked with a pepper spray. She also established that there was no pepper spray used in this incident, and that the Complainant was lying because NM shared a child with the Complainant’s boyfriend and had past issues with NM. Charges against NM were withdrawn by way of a peace bond.
Charges of Utter Death Threats, Possession of a Dangerous Weapon and Assault with a Weapon withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. J.Y. had been living with his girlfriend for a year and the two were experiencing a deterioration of their relationship. During an argument about who should be the one to move out, J.Y. took a pair of scissors and threatened to cut up the complainant’s favorite stuffed animal. The complainant called 911 and gave a statement that she felt physically threatened and J.Y. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer Toronto. After careful review of the evidence, Joseph Neuberger sent J.Y. for counselling regarding conflict management and healthy skills in dealing with relationships. A report was provided to the Crown and on the facts there was no threat at all toward the complainant, only the stuffed animal. Charges withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault x 7 and Assault with Weapon/Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn just prior to starting trial in Orangeville, Ontario. R.D. was in the midst of separation from his wife, the complainant, and an argument erupted over the children and finances. Not surprisingly after my client refused her requests and stated that his lawyer will handle these issues, he left the home and about three hours later, R.D. got a phone call from police to turn himself in. He was charged with an assault the day of the argument, and seven historical assault charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure including the complainant’s statement and limited medical records. The medical records did not support the complainant’s version on events on the assault causing bodily harm. Joseph Neuberger broke down the allegations in chart format and then hired a private investigator who took statements from the two of their children, and two other witnesses as to dates of some of the allegations. The two children, who we had hoped would not be brought into the matter, voluntarily provided statements and were concerned that their mother was providing false information to the police and to the prosecution. The statements from the two boys directly contradicted the complainant on two allegations. In addition, other witnesses provided statements of threats made by the complainant post separation about doing everything possible to ruin R.D. unless she got what she was asking for. As the matter proceeded close to trial, Joseph Neuberger, and the Crown prosecutor had detailed discussions about the frailties of the evidence. Joseph Neuberger provided defence disclosure and then conducted a further pre-trial. After extensive discussions, it was agreed that the Crown would withdraw the charges and the client would sign a peace bond.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
